|
Post by spartan on Jan 23, 2013 12:14:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 23, 2013 14:34:31 GMT -6
Yes it is... Hope that it will survive, but if any of these lawsuits win, I will retire early because I have always wanted to:
1) Sue Playboy for what I am sure will be Carpal-Tunnel when I am older...
2) Sue the state of California for marrying me and not telling me that it would be VERY hazardous to my mental health as a man
|
|
wingtoc
Sophomore Member
Posts: 152
|
Post by wingtoc on Jan 23, 2013 16:04:40 GMT -6
Wow. That was funny I don't care who you are
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Jan 23, 2013 16:09:59 GMT -6
Yes it is... Hope that it will survive, but if any of these lawsuits win, I will retire early because I have always wanted to: 1) Sue Playboy for what I am sure will be Carpal-Tunnel when I am older... 2) Sue the state of California for marrying me and not telling me that it would be VERY hazardous to my mental health as a man Outstanding CQ
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 23, 2013 16:17:42 GMT -6
No, it won't end. Im sure it will evolve, and probably in some ways that most of us won't like; but 10, 20, 50 years down the road there will still be some sort of hs football being played.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 23, 2013 17:03:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Jan 24, 2013 1:24:17 GMT -6
The game wont end. Theres too much money at stake for it to simply end. Equipment will catch up with the times especially Helmets and mouthguards and coaches may have to be certified as Concussion Proof but the game wont end. It just happens that this is big news right now.
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Jan 24, 2013 7:49:53 GMT -6
I don't think this is the end of the sport, there is too much money to be made. It is ALWAYS about the money. However, I do think within the next 10 years, HS aged football will become more a club sport than a HS sport. It's already happening here at one place. I think it's just a matter of time due to the poor funding of schools, how schools are funded, all the cuts, wage freezes, and in ability to get coaches in buildings as teachers. Now please feel free to put me in my place not being a teacher I dont have an insight to your situations. This financial change you have mentioned, will this not mean that Athletic Depts will need to rely on external sponsorships. which is in place largely through the booster clubs? Wont the budgeting changes mean more fundraising activities for coaches, equipment, travel etc? From what I have seen floating around, it wouldnt surprise me if the sports HC and maybe Co-Ordinators would be hired with teaching positions, but I think it would be cheaper to get positional coaches from the community in the future. I know its detracting from the OP but how many schools have a pay to play philosophy for the players?
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 24, 2013 8:22:43 GMT -6
Schools have phased-out booster clubs... you cannot have seperate booster-clubs that can use the name of the school to raise money.
EVERY PENNY that I spend on football has to go through our school account and follow the school purchasing regulations. It is making the job be 90% paper-pusher and 10% coach, where it used to be 90% coach, 10% paper-pusher
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Jan 24, 2013 8:53:59 GMT -6
Schools have phased-out booster clubs... you cannot have seperate booster-clubs that can use the name of the school to raise money. EVERY PENNY that I spend on football has to go through our school account and follow the school purchasing regulations. It is making the job be 90% paper-pusher and 10% coach, where it used to be 90% coach, 10% paper-pusher So how do you go about financing the team in order to make sure that the players have correct equipment to keep them safe? Does that come out of the Athletic Depts budget (meaning you are competing for cash with other sports)?
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 24, 2013 9:18:38 GMT -6
I have to raise the money using school-approved fundraisers... CA and UT are the 2 states I've coached in, and outside booster accounts are going bye-bye.
We still fundraise, but it is ALL run through the school accounts now. My "football" budget the school gives me to run my program is $3000 a year. That doesn't even pay for my recon costs. The other $67,000 that we spend in a given year is all fundraised by myself and my players and has to be collected by the financial people at the school and deposited into my account so that I can "request" to spend it later.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jan 24, 2013 9:35:54 GMT -6
Those numbers are based on averages... $750 might be too much if you have 100+ kids in your program, but if you only have 30, you will have to pay much more per item you buy for a 30 team roster. I get a much better price than our basketball and baseball coaches do on the EXACT SAME stuff because I buy in 120 quantities and they buy in 20-30 quantities.
I went back and did the math on this before I became a HC. I used 100 players in the program so the math was easier to do. I figured every 5 years or so, you needed to purchase new game jerseys and factored in "replacing" equipment in that same time-frame. I think the estimate was that on average, to put a 100-man team on the field each season, it cost about $100,000 each season. Obviously the more stuff you keep year-to-year drives this cost down, but factoring in purchasing, spirit-packs, team events, EVERYTHING it was around there. That puts it at $1000 per kid. Again, some can operate cheaper than that, some can operate on more...
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Jan 24, 2013 9:38:47 GMT -6
Yes it is... Hope that it will survive, but if any of these lawsuits win, I will retire early because I have always wanted to: 1) Sue Playboy for what I am sure will be Carpal-Tunnel when I am older... 2) Sue the state of California for marrying me and not telling me that it would be VERY hazardous to my mental health as a man LOL..My wife tells me she knew she married Mr. Right but didn't know my first name was Always
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 24, 2013 10:22:20 GMT -6
Right, what's the exact concern? Is it that we always knew football caused long term cognitive disability, and these people are crybabies for suing? Or is it that now we know that football can cause such disability, whether from big hits or - much scarier -- from repeated small ones like linemen butting heads in practice, whereas before we didn't? And now that we know fewer people will play/watch/be healthy? Some of this NFL guys suing because they played can be cleared up pretty easily going forward by making these guys sign waivers and things. The trickier question is what if it becomes evident that playing high school ball increases your chance for long-term cognitive disability by 5-10%? Ignore suing, what happens to the number of kids who plays? Does your kid play? Not saying that's where it's going, but those are possible outcomes. There are definitely annoying people who are on a crusade against football, but I think most people are just trying to understand the risks. If one out of every five kids who played soccer ended up paralyzed, I think it'd be pretty easy for me to tell him he can't play soccer. It's just what the risks are. I don't care about rich NFL players but I don't have a good handle on the risks at the high school and college levels.
|
|
|
Post by tom12 on Jan 24, 2013 11:11:32 GMT -6
I think that in 20-30 years, football as we know it will have evolved into 7-on-7. Offenses are moving in this direction, there is a lower risk of catastrophic injury, and there are already "national tournaments" that take place.
Imagine how much lower a school district's insurance costs would be if they did not have football.
Not a cheery thought...
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Jan 24, 2013 18:00:35 GMT -6
Not saying that's where it's going, but those are possible outcomes. There are definitely annoying people who are on a crusade against football, but I think most people are just trying to understand the risks. There was a time when we didnt need seatbelts either. There where times we could get on a plane with nail clippers and spray on deoderant. Times change and money talks. The NFL wants to prove that most damage done, if any at all, was done at HS and/or college level. Its in their vested interest, though short sighted, to do so. The ripple effect will be coaching licences, compulsory courses and due to the capitalist evolution financial burden for that coach. Is that the beginning of the end? I dont think so (they may have said the same thing when Gillman said "Chuck it!"). Is it a step towards better standards of care for the future leaders of this world, I think so. Look at this video at 1:50 I wouldnt teach this anymore but back then it was normal technique. The rest of the video you can see the differences in technique then compared to now.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jan 24, 2013 20:04:38 GMT -6
This is exactly what is happening in Ontario Canada. Canadian high schools have never funded sports like our neighbors to the south, and high school coaches don't get any additional pay or incentives to coach...as a result, you rarely find quality coaching staffs in Canadian high schools. Over the past 7 years, the Ontario club football scene has boomed and I think it is largely responsible for the recent success Canadian football players are having.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 25, 2013 18:14:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by hback41 on Jan 25, 2013 18:59:34 GMT -6
My son, who plays plays rugby because he wanted to continue playing a contact sport after high school, is fascinated by how many NFL players do not wear mouthpieces. after one of Vick's concussion was blamed on a lack of a mouthpiece, he began to notice. He points it out throughout every game we watch. Mouthpieces are vital to preventing concussions, yet a surprisingly high number of players are not wearing them. I have not heard this issue discussed much in terms of concussions in the NFL.
The NFL situation is much different than what we deal with at the high school level, IMO.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2013 23:09:35 GMT -6
I think the sport, sports in general, are in great danger, and I think we will start to see that next year...and while it will be used as the vehichle to do what some want to do, I dont believe a lot of the crap that is coming out now will damage the game.....
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 25, 2013 23:46:02 GMT -6
My son, who plays plays rugby because he wanted to continue playing a contact sport after high school, is fascinated by how many NFL players do not wear mouthpieces. after one of Vick's concussion was blamed on a lack of a mouthpiece, he began to notice. He points it out throughout every game we watch. Mouthpieces are vital to preventing concussions, yet a surprisingly high number of players are not wearing them. I have not heard this issue discussed much in terms of concussions in the NFL. The NFL situation is much different than what we deal with at the high school level, IMO. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards I also am suprised how many aren't wearing the top of the line new helmets. They continue to wear what they wore in high school/college because they are used to them I guess.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 26, 2013 7:39:00 GMT -6
Right, what's the exact concern? Is it that we always knew football caused long term cognitive disability, and these people are crybabies for suing? Or is it that now we know that football can cause such disability, whether from big hits or - much scarier -- from repeated small ones like linemen butting heads in practice, whereas before we didn't? And now that we know fewer people will play/watch/be healthy? Some of this NFL guys suing because they played can be cleared up pretty easily going forward by making these guys sign waivers and things. The trickier question is what if it becomes evident that playing high school ball increases your chance for long-term cognitive disability by 5-10%? Ignore suing, what happens to the number of kids who plays? Does your kid play? Not saying that's where it's going, but those are possible outcomes. There are definitely annoying people who are on a crusade against football, but I think most people are just trying to understand the risks. If one out of every five kids who played soccer ended up paralyzed, I think it'd be pretty easy for me to tell him he can't play soccer. It's just what the risks are. I don't care about rich NFL players but I don't have a good handle on the risks at the high school and college levels. I agree with this line of thinking here. I can remember just a year or two ago when these types of threads disappeared very quickly on the site--usually because they would deteriorate into "wussification of America" threads. It appears that at least the coaches here on this board have gotten past that total denial stage, and are at least willing to say "Wow, MAYBE we need to look at this with a more open mind" Also agree that there is a definite divide between the issues here, but they are somewhat related (in that the underlying supposition that smashing against another object might not be great for health). It is just hard to utilize the data from one situation to make decisions in the other, and that is the shame.
|
|
|
Post by amthd45 on Jan 26, 2013 7:58:15 GMT -6
I am not a prophet, but here are some things I truly believe will be forced into our sport in the next 20 yrs
1. Helmets will be upgraded in every way to prevent concussions. 2. Concussions, when diagnosed by a DR, will result in the player being made to sit out for an entire year to the date (I am not pulling this one out of thin air, this comes from those whom I know in the Athletic Training and Sports Medicine world) this is going to apply for high school players and younger. 3. Kickoffs will be elimnated all together 4. Punts will be allowed, but return of punts will not exist any longer (think of all the "crack back blocks" we see on punts and kickoffs 5. Head to Head hits will result in immediate suspension of a player for that game and possibly for the season.
I dont mean to sound like George Orwell from 1984 or anything, but I am telling you that in 20 years this game is going to change. Similiar to when in its early days Teddy Roosevelt demanded that football be cleaned up or he would ban the sport all together.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 26, 2013 8:53:40 GMT -6
I am not a prophet, but here are some things I truly believe will be forced into our sport in the next 20 yrs I think one issue though, is the lens through with we view the situation. I highlighted a word in your post that potentially shows (even just subconsciously) where some of the friction may exist. Again, the bottom line is that we KNOW that smashing into objects is generally not a positive thing for our health/well-being--and football is essentially 22 players doing exactly that. The things you propose will definitely change football as it is now (just as the safety changes implemented to return the game from the brink of banishment did), but do we as coaches really need to view it as being "FORCED", if such endeavors do provide a safer situation for the kids we coach?
|
|
|
Post by calkayne on Jan 26, 2013 9:52:05 GMT -6
1. Helmets will be upgraded in every way to prevent concussions. 2. Concussions, when diagnosed by a DR, will result in the player being made to sit out for an entire year to the date (I am not pulling this one out of thin air, this comes from those whom I know in the Athletic Training and Sports Medicine world) this is going to apply for high school players and younger. 3. Kickoffs will be elimnated all together 4. Punts will be allowed, but return of punts will not exist any longer (think of all the "crack back blocks" we see on punts and kickoffs 5. Head to Head hits will result in immediate suspension of a player for that game and possibly for the season. 1. is way overdue anyway imo. With the speeds we have today and the technology to develop materials, the only thing holding this back is money. Which in itself must also be appreciated. 2. An entire year PUP sounds harsh but I guess that would depend on the intensity of the concussion right? 3. Agreed 4. All Punts a fair catch, agreed 5. For the defense, but I dont see this impacting the offense in any way Point 5 is where the grey area is, at what point is a RB not going to be allowed to lower the shoulder? At what point will the Spearing rule be enforced. The rule is already in place.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jan 26, 2013 10:55:51 GMT -6
I am not a prophet, but here are some things I truly believe will be forced into our sport in the next 20 yrs 1. Helmets will be upgraded in every way to prevent concussions. 2. Concussions, when diagnosed by a DR, will result in the player being made to sit out for an entire year to the date (I am not pulling this one out of thin air, this comes from those whom I know in the Athletic Training and Sports Medicine world) this is going to apply for high school players and younger. 3. Kickoffs will be elimnated all together 4. Punts will be allowed, but return of punts will not exist any longer (think of all the "crack back blocks" we see on punts and kickoffs 5. Head to Head hits will result in immediate suspension of a player for that game and possibly for the season. 1. I agree with the helmet upgrades BUT there is a whole other school of thought out there that suggest the more protective a helmet is - the more likely a player is going to feel invinsible in it and use it as a weapon. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but I've heard that argument a lot more recently. But the new rules and penalties should act as a deterent to prevent this. 2. This is a double edged sword in that it would result in fewer concussions being reported. Think of a kid with a scholarship on the line - speaking up about a concussion could cost him thousands of dollars in scholarship money. Obviously I agree that having a healthy brain is far more important, but I don't know if teenage kids (or even some of their parents) will see it that way. 3. & 4. I agree that we will eventually see the kicking rules changed significantly or maybe even eliminated all together. 5. I agree with calkayne that this is a very grey area that is difficult to officiate.
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Jan 27, 2013 9:47:07 GMT -6
It is interesting to me that the NFL, Coaches, and others.....
1. Discuss reducing the speed and space of special teams plays, at the same time create rules to enhance greater space on offensive/defensive plays (ie increase pass game).
What would be the impact on football if they eliminated hand blocking and the NFL allowed DB to jam recievers until the ball is in the air, obviously pass game would be greatly reduced and in turn the space in which the game is played would be reduced likely the interest in the game would be reduced.
2. Discuss the importance of creating improved equipment, however continue to build sleeker more comfortable helmets.
I'm reminded of I believe it was Steve Taskers helmet, it had the helmet and an outer core, now I'm not sure of the proven effectiveness or lack there of, of this design I can state that it is obvious creating additional layers of an outer core of a helmet that takes impact movement especially rotational impact out prior to even contact occurs to the core of the helmet would improve the safety of hits that occur. Why is it we are not seeing different outer core designs of helmets that reduce multiple forces of the impact, is it simply that it doesn't look cool, they would not sell as many, kids don't feel as fast in them. At what cost....
3. The concussion issue has changed my approach as a coach, it has made me much more focused on how we practice, how long we practice, and how we protect our kids, in my opinion it has made me a better coach due to these factors, this offseason we have focused completely on how we can teach tackling better to avoid helmet to helmet contact at all cost..... We never encouraged this or coached it but now I want it completely eliminated for the protection of our players!
4. Brophy I appreciate your posts on the subject the analysis of this subject is critical for all of our growth and our sports growth...
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 29, 2013 23:01:09 GMT -6
|
|